Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Lake Placid Village, Inc. v. Lake Placid Main Street Corp.
Citations: 90 A.D.2d 873; 456 N.Y.S.2d 477; 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19142
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; November 3, 1982; New York; State Appellate Court
An appeal was filed from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, which granted the defendant Lake Placid Main Street Corporation's cross motion to dismiss the complaint of Lake Placid Village, Inc. The plaintiff sought to compel the removal of a sign structure allegedly violating the village’s sign ordinance, which mandates signs be set back at least four feet from public streets or highways. The sign, erected in 1956, was subject to an ordinance enacted in 1960 that initially required a ten-foot setback, later amended in 1966 to four feet, with a compliance deadline of January 1, 1964. After the village requested the sign's removal in 1980 and the defendant neglected to act, the plaintiff filed for injunctive relief. The defendant countered by cross-moving to dismiss, arguing the complaint lacked a cause of action, the village was barred by laches, and the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague. The defendant submitted a surveyor's map showing the sign was over four feet from the traveled portion of the road and affidavits indicating no recorded State right of way existed. The court ruled that a motion to dismiss could not succeed unless the defendant conclusively proved no cause of action existed. The surveyor's map was deemed insufficient as it represented only one opinion on the boundaries, and the affidavits did not negate the possibility of a prescriptive right of way. The village contended that the State inherited such a right when Main Street became a State highway. The court found this argument substantial enough to withstand dismissal. Moreover, the court stated that a defense based on documentary evidence would not be decisive unless it resolved all factual issues, which was not the case here due to substantial questions regarding the prescriptive right of way and the definition of the "traveled portion" of Main Street. The defendant's argument regarding the vagueness of the ordinance was also rejected, as was the laches defense, affirming that municipalities can enforce zoning laws without being hindered by laches or estoppel. The order and judgment were modified by reversing the dismissal of the complaint and denying the defendant's cross motion, with the case being affirmed as modified, without costs.